Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Harmon (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be two main areas of contention; whether the sources are enough, or if her popularity is enough to constitute notability. On both of these points, both those wishing to keep and those wishing for deletion make clear, concise points. (Alongwith some not-so-concise points) It would be innappropriate to call a result either way given the divided nature of the discussion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Harmon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heather Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources, and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: According to PORNBIO, she may fall under #4, as their website was certainly an early headliner of online porn. I would wager that at least half of anyone who's watched porn downloaded off the internet has seen her. However, we have no third-party reliable sources justifying any notability, the only source given is the introduction to an interview. I would personally say she's notable, as far as porn goes; I would also say that, with the sources given, that notability may not be properly asserted. References 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are interviews or first-party sources; #8 is a forum post, which so far as I know is never considered a proper source [unless, ironically, it were a first-party post]; and 2, 5, and 9 adequately source their statements but are not used to source notability (Except for the KSEX one, but I would say that coming in second in a listener poll is not a major award) I give props to Stillwaterising for his work on this but without better sources, I'm not sure where it can go from here. --Golbez (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Golbez; though the topic appears important, there does not seem to be sufficient independent reliable coverage to verify a biography. As this is a living person, it would be irresponsible to keep the article unless such coverage can be found.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Remember: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."-WP:RS I don't see how the argument can made that the sources are not independent. Obviously the FAQ of the Official Site is not independent, but it can be considered to be a reliable primary source about itself. It is only used for biometrical information like eye color and measurements, it is not used in the article itself.

  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.-WP:GNG

I read the above guideline to mean unduly self-serving and I don't see how the main sources can be found to be as such. Regardless of your opinion on WP:PORNBIO#4, which I think the meets, she does meet one or both of WP:ANYBIO and therefore does not need to meet any of the Pornbio criterea. For more discussion of this see the Talk:Heather Harmon and Talk:Notability (people) -- Stillwaterising (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re ANYBIO, she certainly doesn't meet #1, and #2 is precisely what we're discussing here: currently, in the article, it is sourced only by interviews. I do think she might qualify, but sadly we don't have any major sourcing on it. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:ENTERTAINER #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following?" The peak viewership from the data that is available at Quantcast shows that the site had 360,000 people visit per month in 3/07. The data also shows a downward trend with the actual peak being higher in the period before the data begins. Stephanie Swift, who is by all accounts notable in her field, has a peak of only 11,100 people a month for her website. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harmon is an internet-based porn star, so clearly her website is going to get more hits than most porn stars'. This demonstates why numbers shouldn't be used to judge notability. Epbr123 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wicked Pictures, which publishes many of Swift's videos, has on it's website more than 1,273 models, but it only has 250k people per month. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Hardsextube.com gets 1.6 million views a month – proof that popularity doesn't equate to notability. Epbr123 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardsextube's a user upload adult video site, like YouPorn, etc. That doesn't count. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to your logic, Harmon is five times less notable than Hardsextube.com. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a website to a person. According to policy, entertainers are explicitly notable based on part on their popularity ("cult following"). No such criteria exists for websites. That is the crucial difference here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's not policy. Secondly, why are "popular" entertainers notable but not "popular" websites? Surely standards should be tougher for BLPS than websites? This is getting off-topic now so I won't be discussing this here much further. Epbr123 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr. Wikilawyer, I obviously meant the notabilities guidelines. The consensus notability guideline for entertainers has a provision for cult popularity. The consensus notability guideline for websites has no provision for popularity of any kind. If you think the guidelines are wrong, get consensus to change them but simply saying they are wrong doesn't invalidate their use in this AfD. And yes, Mrs. Harmon does have a significant cult following. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is millions of people have intentionally visited the site which qualifies as a 'large fan base' or even 'significant cult following'. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find a reliable source that says she has a large fan base. Coming up with numbers doesn't prove anything. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you claim that internet statistics "don't prove anything?" What guideline are you quoting? WP:DIS? Stillwaterising (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:Bignumber and common sense. A fan base can't be measured and there's no definition of a large fan base. Epbr123 (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Bignumber is an essay, not consensus policy. Common sense would say a large fan base would be defined in comparison to other similar notable actors. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nextdoornikki.com gets 1.5 million views a month, yet Nikki doesn't have an article. If anything, you statistics prove that Harmon doesn't have a large fan base. Epbr123 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. She does deserve her own page. I'll make it my next project. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existence or lack thereof of an article for any of these is not a reason to keep or delete this particular article. --Golbez (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, I would like the argue that Ideepthroat.com's popularity is almost entirely due to Heather's presence on the site. While there were occasionally other women (and of course her husband Jim's penis), Heather is the undeniably the star attraction and therefore fans of the website are by proxy fans of Heather Harmon. -Stillwaterising (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of those rare circumstances when common sense can override the GNG (if deemed necessary). Harmon's internet popularity is pretty evident, so the only question is "is that enough?" I say that in this case, yes it is. I am well aware that popularity and notability aren't the same thing, and indeed I might argue against popularity-based notability in most cases. However, with an entertainer their real world notability is usually based on their popularity and thus I think it is a valid metric for Wikipedia as well. As noted, Harmon also meets WP:ENT #2. Finally, I disagree that interviews can't be used to establish notability - an interview in a reliable publication should count. Non-notable people are not normally interviewed, as normally a publication wants to attract readers which is done by publishing information of interest to its readers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same rationale as previous nomination. Does not pass PORNBIO because no reliable sources verify her being a pioneer. I don't consider those interviews (afro-squad, eroszine)to be conducted by reliable sources and I see any claims from them as just puffery. Does not satisfy GNG because lack of sufficient reliable sources. Closest thing is the student newspaper but it's an opinion column where the author mentions having stumbled upon one of Harmon's clips on her boyfriend's ipod. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Harmons and their site have historical significance as one of the early amateur "reality" porn sites. Their website is internationally known and well-frequented despite the lack of new material. I consider the references adequate for a very difficult subject to document. And look at this site. Leaving the politics aside, when your name alone with no explanation has become as synonomous with the act of "sucking" as Hoover or a DustBuster, I think you have reached "notability". The article is informative and encyclopedic, there is no "controversial" material to be feared in a BLP, and without quoting a WP:THIS or WP:THAT, as per ThaddeusB, I think this is an instance where common sense should prevail. I can see no useful purpose that can be accomplished by deleting the article. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, of course a name with deepthroat as part of it with no explanation is going to be seen as synonymous with sucking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd bother to look at the link you'd know it was a joke poll that says "George Bush sucks like..." one of the options being "Like Heather Harmon." Indicating that, yes, her name (not Ideepthroat) is synonymous with sucking - at least to the poll's creator. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a message board poll is indicative of notability? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. My intention was only to explain what the OP was saying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since she has received 0 votes in about 2.5 years, it's hard to see this poll as evidence supporting notability. Since the entire poll has received only 31 votes in 2.5 years, it's not evidence of much beyond the fact that 31 very bored people stumbled across the forum post. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone (OP included) was saying the poll proved notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even see a reliable source associating the name used as the article title with the website whose activities supposedly generate notability, and there's certainly not enough to satisfy the GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ThaddeusB's reasoning. However, I agree with Golbez and Skomorokh that more reliable 3rd party sources should be found to augment the existing references. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been watching the page view statistics for this page and I've seen the views increase exponentially since the page was first reintroduced. Yesterday was the highest day yet at 914. It would seem to me that the trend in viewership would suggest that this page is of interest to a wider audience than it might seem. --Stillwaterising (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and there are no reliable sources for the article. It looks like a fansite. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple third-party interviews in the subject's area of "notability". Whether these interview sources would be considered "reliable" in an article on a mainstream subject is irrelevant, because this is not an article on a mainstream subject. As interviews by third-party sources in the subject's area of notoriety, they indicate "notability". Dekkappai (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is a BLP, and WP:BLP does not relax reliable sourcing requirements for persons who are out of the "mainstream." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not about reliable sourcing, they are about "notability". Interviews are conducted with "notable" people. Also, any rule that says an interview with a person is not a reliable source for a biography of that person is bat-shit insane. Not that bat-shit insane rules bother some people, of course... just pointing out the obvious... Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A TV reporter interviewed me after I left my polling station yesterday, a clip ran on the 11pm news, and a longer version is on the station website. Am I notable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a perfect example of why subject-sourced information, like interviews, is not necessary reliable. [1] And if somebody out there has a large enough collection of 1980s porn, I'll bet they can find some interviews with Traci Lords that would conclusively demonstrate the unreliability problem. Not to mention any number of politicians who've been caught making phony claims in interviews. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, unreliable publications are more likely to misquote interviewees, either deliberately or accidentally. Epbr123 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the two of you need to read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". In real world biographies, interviews are used for biographical data if appropriately sourced and "According to"ed. That's why God made quote-marks and citations. Besides this, interviews are 100% reliable sources for quotes, opinions, observations, etc. by the subject of the article. And the fact that this person has been interviewed multiple times because of her prominence in a certain field shows "notability". Hullaballoo-- If you are high-profile, innovative voter, and you've been sought out for an interview on the subject several times, sure you're a notable voter. It sounds like you were just grabbed at random though. I highly doubt these interviews were conducted at random on the street, and I'm sure, deep down, you understand that, and that you're being a smart-ass. Dekkappai (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V also says that material added to Wikipedia has to have been published by a reliable source. If Harmon was important, an interview with her would have been sought by bigger publishers than Afro-Squad.com. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's sought by publishers who cover her area of notability. Dekkappai (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Afro-Squad, she sought/accepted interviews with SOHO Magazine, eYada radio, and ErosZine (not to be confused with ErosGuide NY mentioned in WP:PORN EL's). -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an unconfirmed report that she was interviewed by University of North Texas KNTU radio on 12/12/2005. -Stillwaterising (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are reliable. Epbr123 (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an audio recording of a live radio interview (eYada.com) could seen as unreliable. There seems to be a degree of insanity in Epbr123's arguments. -Stillwaterising (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he is saying is, interviews are first-party sources and therefore are not inherently reliable. If I give 10 interviews and in each one say I'm the president of Minsk, that doesn't make it so. Such assertions have to be backed up by third-party sources. If reputable third-party sources confirm that I am the president of Minsk, then we're cooking. --Golbez (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraphs of most interviews contain background information on subject. They are usually written by the interviewer in advance of the interview containing detailed background research, not a summary of the interview itself.
In this way, an interview can be considered a mixture of both primary and secondary sources. While the interviewer does ask questions, he/she will also make statements like "You and Jim are a real-life couple, but you are undeniably the face of the website." - ErosZine. Why are these statements considered primary sources when they come from a third-party source? Common sense, logic, and this source all support this notion. -Stillwaterising (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Let's just hope the people who are incapable of making a decision without literal adherence to some absurd rule, without thinking about it, never find out that secondary sources can be wrong also. Then foolish consistency will lead us back to writing articles entirely from our own "personal knowledge"-- which is just what this kind of thinking leads to. Pretending to hold articles up to higher standards, what this really results in is anonymous editors judging sourcing for themselves-- instead of presenting them in a NPOV manner for the reader to judge-- and throwing out sourcing that any reputable biography would use. Pick up any biography of any person who has been interviewed, and you're going to find references to those interviews within. Again, as long as they're properly cited and quoted they are perfectly valid sources for quotes, opinions, observations, and even biographical data as claimed by the subject. Are the Interview-haters really unaware that sometimes the subject can be correct and the "reliable sources" wrong? Oh, to live in such blissful ignorance again... Again, "Verifiability, not truth" seems to be the issue here. The Deletionist faction seems to be working on throwing out WP:V and WP:NPOV by claiming no source is as "reliable" as their own, personal, unqualified judgment... How can a notable person's claims to be the president of Minsk in multiple interviews, be of no interest to that person's biography? Did the person claim that in interviews? If yes, mention it and cite it. If it's not true as shown in other sources, mention that too. Not only valid, references to interviews with the subject, if they exist, are essential for giving a fully-rounded biography. Any rule that says interviews are to be excluded out-of-hand from a biography is fanatical-- in Santayana's definition of the term-- as are those who enforce that rule. Dekkappai (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But again: Just because someone gives interviews does not make them notable. And also, I am not a deletionist; I have not voted on this AFD, nor, do I believe, any of its past AFDs. I said right out that I think she's notable enough for inclusion; the problem is verifying it. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to imply you were one of the Deletionist faction, Golbez-- sorry if my wording gave that impression. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the interviews though-- I can't see a person being sought out for interviews on their area of notoriety not being indication that that person is either a notable in the field or an expert on it. Dekkappai (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think the mere existence of interviews can count as establishing notability. This kind of thing will be very difficult to find good sources on. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of interviews means someone that covers her field thinks she's important enough to interview-- that implies notability from where I sit. I see your point though, that an article sourced entirely by interviews-- even properly sourced with "according to so & so"-- will come off as an autobiography, which is not what we do here. But they still indicate a "notable" subject, even if the article has to be a stub for now. I think it is important to remember that notable subjects outside of the mainstream-- generally current, popular, US culture-- often DO have good sourcing out there somewhere, but it's not easy to find. When I first came here, all but one or two articles in my own area of specialization-- Japanese erotic cinema-- were considered "non-notable" even by editors whose opinion I trust, and do not consider at all Deletionist. I started out working in this area arguing against deletion with just the personal knowledge, which I couldn't back up at the time, that many of these subjects easily passed "notability" requirements-- far more so than their easily-sourceable US counterparts. All I could find at the time were indications-- such as sales figures or interviews-- that they had a high position in the field. Over a couple years working in this one area of specialization, I now do have the sourcing, evidence of mainstream appearances, awards and other proof to show that many of the subjects which were easy targets for deletion, now easily pass notability. Dekkappai (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a couple of weeks ago NPR (not a non-notable source by far) interviewing a man whose claim to fame was... going to 19 Washington Nationals games, and they lost all 19. Being interviewed by a notable, reputable source is not in itself worth it. If the Washington Post had done the same, then we'd have multiple sources - and he still would be far from qualifying for an article. What would be really great is if someone wrote some book or made a documentary about the history of internet porn, such a thing would have to mention her, but until then... I don't know if I can picture someone coming to the article who knew nothing about her and coming away thinking, "Wow, this woman is notable and worthy of inclusion." Wikipedia can't be inside baseball. --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the problem with black & white interpretations-- As with Hullaballoo's exit-interview example above: I don't think all interviews indicate notability. Neither do I think interviews never indicate notability... Was this guy sought out because of his notoriety? I don't think so-- it was a story about the games. Sounds like he was just a bystander/witness of a notable event though, and he might deserve mention in the article on the event... But an article on the guy? Not from one interview about his witnessing some games. But if coverage of him, himself, for himself, becomes widespread in several news outlets... well, that's notable, so why not?... Anyway, I respect your views, but I don't think we're convincing each other here. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I interviewed Harmon for www.Afro-Squad.com in 2006. She was one of the first amateur adult stars on the internet with a significant following. I apologize that I am new to Wikipedia so my argument may be jaded by my lack of experience with the website; however, she was clearly a poineer. In the late 1990s, every guy on any college campus knew who she was, if even by the incorrect name of Heather Brooke. She was on the radio and talk shows, and she advanced the idea of a amateur pay website. She may have fallen out of the public eye, but she was a major part of internet history. Videos like hers helped develop sites like Napster to video based torrent sites, which play a major role in media transfer. User Ninjapimp69 ==

Weak Delete. Here are my problems with the article. First, there are only, at best, three sources that could be considered reliable in the Wikipedia sense: The two interviews and the Duke Chronicle article. Of these two interviews, the Internet radio interview is the only one in which the journalist can be identified. As it is an interview, however, we cannot be sure the information contained therein is factually correct - unless we assume the interviewer did fact-checking before publishing.

The SOHO interview is problemmatic for two reasons. One, the interview sits on the IDT site, which itself cannot be used to establish notability. Second, the PDF of the interview on the IDT does not verify the interviewer's name. Thus, we run into the same problem as we do with the Internet radio interview, essentially, that of factual accuracy.

That leaves us with the third (possibly) reliable source; The Duke Chronicle. THe problem here is that this article references a Heather Brooke, not a Heather Harmon; we have no way of verifying these are the same two people.

The other sources aren't reliable secondary sources in the Wikipedia sense, as they do not have a "reputation for fact checking." That is, they were not written, created or published by a journalist, academic, author or some other literary professional, and they were not commissioned by a magazine, newspaper, academic journal or some of source where rigorous editing and fact checking are required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemis84 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Duke article not meaning to prove anything but merely for the sake of argument. It's ironic that you regard this as possibly the most notable source because I see it as nearly insignificant. I can assure you, however, that Heather Harmon and Heather Brooke are one in the same person. I did a Google search as an experiment on the search term "deep throat" heather and found that the first 87 search results (not counting 1 Youtube video that's an obvious misrepresentation) contain either a reference to Ideepthroat or videos of Heather Harmon. Ironically, out of the first 40 results I counted, 14 referred to her as Heather Brooke and none referred to her as Heather Harmon. I think this passes the duck test. Like they say, millions of people can't be wrong. -Stillwaterising (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke article is a column, so its reliability is questionable. But if it is reliable, its coverage of Heather is trivial and still doesn't make her notable. Epbr123 (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search and analysis like this is original research, as Wikipedia defines the term, and can't be used to source/support claims in an article. For good reason; try googling "alyson hannigan"+"sex tape" --overwhelmingly but counterfactual evidence that such a tape exists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when you click on the links do you actually find an actual Alyson Hannigan sex tape - or porn actress Luna Lane? Nowhere in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions does it mention that original research cannot be presented in an Afd argument. This isn't a court of law, this is a group consensus discussion. There is a preponderance of the clear and convincing evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Heather Brooke is actually Heather Harmon. Dismissing the evidence, and denying the obvious, is a perfect example of not calling a spade a spade, ie WP:DUCK. -Stillwaterising (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely missed the point. Your collection of unreliable sources proves no more about Harmon/Brooke/whoever than mine does about Hannigan. Whatever claims you may find on sites like spankwire, slutload, sexshare, and tnaflix don't meet the reliable source requirements of WP:BLP. Most of the links in that search go to illegal filesharing sites, where the content is user-contributed, and clearly fails WP:RS/WP:BLP. They're about as reliable as blog discussions of Obama's birth certificate or college thesis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A are you implying that every one of those videos is fake?! Even an unreliable website can still post a reliable source, especially when were are talking about primary sources like videos (which can't be easily altered). Are you implying that just because the SOHO interview (which is a scanned JPEG file, extremely difficult to fake) is hosted on Ideepthroat.com, it's most likely a forgery? That doesn't make sense. -Stillwaterising (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm saying that anyone can post a video of a woman performing oral sex on a man to the web and identify her as Heather Harmon, Heather Brooke, Heather Locklear, Heather Graham, Lauren Graham, Lauren Ambrose, Lauren Bush, Kate Bush, Katie Couric, etc, and the claims generally fail WP:V. Videos and image files are incredibly easy to fake or attach phony ids to, especially lower-res videos [2]. Claims in Wikipedia must be backed by solid, reliable, sources, generally third-party sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that those videos are not user-generated content. They are exact copies of videos that were originally posted at Ideepthroat.com (and not a look-alike either). What I'm trying to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that there is a popular misconception that the woman featured in those videos is popularly known as Heather Brooke. Yes, with a great deal of time, skill, and attention to detail, a photograph can be faked, but we aren't talking about photographs are we? In order to fake a 3 1/2 minute video that same time/skill/attention needs to applied to each of the 5,000 or so frames involved. Multiply that by 300+ videos, we're talking about more than 1.5 million frames that needs to be individually altered to create the effect. Considering it would take at least two hours per frame to complete this task your talking about more than 3,000,000 man-hours to create this deception! Hmmm... why spend $30M or more faking an entire collection of amateur porn videos when you can download them off the internet for free? Do you want me to obtain professional verification that the images found on Redtube etc. are actually exact replicas of the ones found at Ideepthroat? Why don't you just go to these sites and prove it for yourself?! -Stillwaterising (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep missing the point. The identifications are user-generated content, and are unreliable. And faking videos is a lot easier and cheaper than you think, as seven seconds of googling turned up this site [3], which includes a great deal of horrid, sexually explicit, thoroughly nonauthentic content which makes my point clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I have to admit the website you referred to has some interesting videos - only the Alyson Hannigan video came close to passing believability, and then for only 20 seconds or so which is about 500 frames. An obsessed person with a few hundred hours of free time could produce that. For the sake of argument, let's say that ALL of the Heather Brooke videos that AREN'T found at Ideepthroat.com are fake, and ALL of them are 100% believable in EVERY frame, then wouldn't that be a extremely notable accomplishment in video editing (not to mention copyright enforcement)? There's zero evidence of this of course and no "fake" videos of Heather Deepthroat/Harmon/Brooke can be found at http://celebrityfakevideo.com. -Stillwaterising (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the motivations behind producing a fake sex tape of major celebrity, but what would the motivation be behind these alleged fake sex tapes of Heather Harmon-Brooke? We've already seen her suck d**k and take it up the a**. -Stillwaterising (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel like a consensus has been reached as to whether or not Heather Harmon/Brooke meets the requirement of WP:ENT#2 - "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Doesn't she pass the duck test for this as well? -Stillwaterising (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A thoroughly and independently verified non-stub is only possible with significant coverage in WP:BLP-worthy reliable sources. That is the test of notability, and as is evident by the paltry amount of sourced content the article evinces, this topic has failed it. It is irresponsible of us to retain a biography in such circumstances.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass the requirements set out at WP:PORNBIO. While there is some web coverage, the requirement is that the person have "mainstream" media coverage (ie that they have been talked about in sources beyond those that focus on the porn industry) Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a completely false statement. A subject is required to meet one of the PORNBIO criteria, or one of the ENT criteria, or one of the BIO criteria, or the GNG. To state a pornographic actress doesn't warrant an article because they fail one PORNBIO criteria is plan false - and if it was true we would have almost zero articles in this subject area as it is exceedingly rare for porn people to be covered in mainstream sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the old, "For a person in this subject area to be considered notable, the person must be covered in a reliable source. A reliable source is defined as a source that does not cover this subject area" routine. An oldie but a goodie :) Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that isn't what Blueroar said. He/she said that the coverage must be mainstream, which simply is not true. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't word it very well: For a porn subject to be notable, it must be covered by sources that do not cover porn. i.e., mainstream sources. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a popular misconception. WP:PORNBIO's criteria #5 states "Has made multiple appearances in notable mainstream media." However, criteria #5 is but 1 out of 10 additional criteria. For actors who do not meet PORNBIO #5, sources must simply be independent of the actor (not the industry) and meet acceptable reliability standards. You can find a discussion about this on the WP:Notability [talk page]. -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • In addition to meeting at least one additional criteria (for a porn actors that would include three WP:ENTERTAINER, four WP:PORNBIO, and two WP:ANYBIO criteria). HOWEVER, this is a guideline, not a rule. WP:BIO states:
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."-Stillwaterising (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a false argument here, it's the idea that mainstream media do not discuss porn stars or the porn industry... not so. As a simple google news search for the words Porn star demonstrates... any number of porn actors and actresses have been mentioned by mainstream media. Any of these news stories could be used to establish notability in articles on any number of porn stars. The point is... While other porn stars are mentioned in mainstream sources, Heather Harmon is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream media occasionally cover the porn industry, more often they mention it in passing. English language media occasionally cover Japanese culture. To insist that in order to be "notable" a porn subject must be covered by media that do not regularly cover the topic is akin to insisting that a Japanese subject must be covered by English language media in order to be notable. This leads to biased coverage of non-US/current/mainstream subjects, which we as Wikipedia editors should work against. Dekkappai (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like it's been rescued by the rescue squad :). There are enough sources to assert notability. Airplaneman talk 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about the same as when the AfD began. Have you read the discussion about the sources? Epbr123 (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - why are we stuck on the argument as to whether Heather Harmon meets WP:GNG? The GNG page clearly states that WP:BIO is an acceptable alternative guideline. So if WP:BIO is where we should be focusing our attention, why hasn't a single person mentioned this to me? I've posted the Basic Criteria on the talk page. In brief it states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That only means that the "subject" needs one reliable source with substantial coverage to attain notability." So how does this related to the article at hand? Heather does not have one single with in-depth written coverage about her like a biography. For cases like this there's an exception: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" and this is where we are at now. Now here's where the bottom drops out: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." I've made arguments both here and on WT:No original research, stating that interviews are to be considered a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Since the interviewer's introduction and questions are written well in advance of the interview based on independent research of available sources, they should be considered a secondary source. If I were to take the interview's introduction and delete the interview text, what would you be left with? An article about the subject. I can see how interviews are considered only as primary sources because the current guidelines say they are, however I have had this same discussion on WT:NOR and a consensus was reached on this. Go there and read it for yourself, or even just sit around and think about it for a while, it makes sense. -Stillwaterising (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's how each source stands:
    1. Official site – Not independent, and only reliable for some statements, so can't establish notability
    2. IAFD – Independent, generally reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability
    3. Afro-Squad – Intro is independent, but not reliable, so can't establish notability
    4. Eroz-Zine – Intro is independent, but not reliable, so can't establish notability
    5. Duke Uni – Independent, possibly reliable, but fairly trivial coverage, so can possibly establish notability in conjuction with other similar sources
    6. eYada – Intro is independent, but not reliable as it's located on Harmon's site, so can't establish notability
    7. Porylittledevil – Independent, but not reliable, so can't establish notability
    8. Quantcast – Independent, reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability
    9. Alexa – Independent, reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability
    10. KSex – Independent, reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability
    11. Soho – Not independent, and not reliable as it's located on Harmon's site, so can't establish notability
    12. Love Bytes – Independent, reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability
    13. Better Business – Independent, reliable, but trivial coverage, so can't establish notability Epbr123 (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first time in this discussion I agree with Epbr123's main points, however there's a few things that don't seem to either "go by the book" or conform to reasonable suspcicion.
  • First, on #1 agree
      • #2,#8,#9,#10,#12, and #13 - The Basic Criteria states "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added) whereas "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not."
  • #6 should read "not verified and may not be reliable as it's located on the Harmons' site."
  • #11 Independant, but may not be reliable as it's located on the Harmons' site.-Stillwaterising (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources I've labelled as trivial contain either "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". Epbr123 (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • #8 and #9 contain detailed web usage statistics for the Harmons' website - the numbers are notable for website in this genre that hasn't been updated for 3 years
#10 contains listener choice award result for an internet radio station in which she was awarded 2nd place in her chosen field; which unquestionably establishes notability
#12 is a 16.5 minute interview, not a "mention in passing"
#13 contains a company reliability review which is not in itself notable, but rather is used to support a specific claim
My next question is: how does one establish what a "large fan base" is in the field of amateur internet pornography in the early 1990's? -Stillwaterising (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source has to say "Harmon has a large fan base". Epbr123 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for this? Guidelines? Previous Afd consensus? WP:NOR? -Stillwaterising (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Analysis by Epbr123 above clearly shows trivial to no coverage of the subject by reliable sources. Valrith (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Heh. Looks like they're calling in the reserves... Dekkappai (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a source called AllExerts.com. I had found this in my original research but had dismissed it because it was an online encyclopedia, however it does say it's written by experts, not the public at large. I've posted this new source to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and asked for their opinion. I would appreciate it if nobody tries to revert the new edit until a determination can be made. Thank you! -Stillwaterising (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the source proves to be reliable it clearly indicates Heather's popularity and inclusion within WP:ENT criteria #2, a large fan base or cult following. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a well-known wikipedia mirror, and therefore completely unacceptable as a reference. Just check out virtually any article of significant size, like Bruce Springsteen. Some of the scrapes aren't current, so there is some variation from current wikitext, but the sourcing is obvious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an article on AllExperts about Springsteen. All I found was this list of questions and answers. You need to check your sources before flying off the handle. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted Keep earlier and stick to it. To the ones who would like to delete: I would use common sense here, for citing rules and regulations will only carry an Afd so far. Think - if someone searches Heather Harmon on Wikipedia wanting to read up on a little background information, they will find a fine stub-class, possibly start-class, article written by experienced Wikipedians. The article at hand is better than most already on the encyclopedia (most are very short poorly referenced stubs). If there are not enough refs, find more, and tag the page as "refimprove" to warn readers about the inadequate amount of information. If one were to delete this article, many many more articles on this encyclopedia require deletion - thousands even. Take for instance Fred Chang, the founder of Newegg, Jake Doland (Emmerdale), or Joe Sutter. They're short. They have a few references. And hardly anybody knows about them. Yet, they all have an article. It's something to consider. Airplaneman talk 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Check out Cepola macropthalma. Is it non-notable because there aren't many sources for that? Airplaneman talk 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of reliable sources for cepola macropthalma exist and easily findable[4] so I don't understand the point you're getting at. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His point is Cepola macropthalma exists peacefully unchallenged while Heather Harmon with 15 verified sources (but only 11 sentences!) is being picked to shreds by biased editors. The removal of this article has become a personal mission a small minority of individuals. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is because there is a general consensus that some things (such as types of fish) are notable as a class, while others (such as amature porn actresses) are not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a good argument at AfD. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heather_Harmon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089934412"